NEW ISSUES IN REFUGEE RESEARCH
Research Paper No. 200
In harms way:
the irregular movement of migrants to Southern Africa
from the Horn and Great Lakes regions
Katy Long
Refugee Studies Centre,
University of Oxford
E-mail: katylong@gmail.com
Jeff Crisp
Head, Policy Development and Evaluation Service
UNHCR
E-mail: crisp@unhcr.org
January 2011
Policy Development and Evaluation Service
Policy Development and Evaluation Service
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
P.O. Box 2500, 1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
E-mail: hqpd00@unhcr.org
Web Site: www.unhcr.org
These papers provide a means for UNHCR staff, consultants, interns and associates, as well
as external researchers, to publish the preliminary results of their research on refugee-related
issues. The papers do not represent the official views of UNHCR. They are also available
online under „publications‟ at <www.unhcr.org>.
ISSN 1020-7473
Introduction
This paper examines the mixed movement of people that is currently taking place
between the East and Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region to the southern part
of the continent.1 Stretching all the way from Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia to South
Africa‟s Atlantic coast, growing numbers of people are travelling the whole or part of
this complex 4,500 kilometre route, travelling overland, by sea and (much less
commonly) by air.
It is a difficult and dangerous journey that imposes a great deal of hardship on the
people concerned and which exposes them to a variety of human rights and protection
risks. At the same time, this mixed movement, much of which is irregular in nature
and organized by human smugglers, is of growing concern to states, who regard it as a
violation of their national laws as well as a threat to their sovereignty, security and
economy.
This paper opens with a global perspective on these issues, defining the notion of
mixed movements and explaining why in recent years it has attracted growing
attention from the international community. The paper then goes on to provide an
account of the mixed movements that are currently taking place to and within
Southern Africa. The following part of the paper identifies some of the key policy and
operational issues arising from this phenomenon, while the final section examines
some recent approaches and initiatives that have been taken in relation to this matter.
The global context
In the past decade, states and international organizations have become increasingly
concerned with the need to address the issue of mixed movements, which have been
defined as “complex population movements including refugees, asylum seekers,
economic migrants and other migrants” (IOM 2009a).
In a mixed movement, these people may travel with or alongside each other, using the
same routes and means of transport but with different motivations and objectives.
Such movements often involve irregular or clandestine travel, “exposing people to
exploitation and abuse by smugglers and traffickers or placing their lives at risk. Most
migrants, when they travel irregularly, are in vulnerable situations” (UNHCR 2009a).
As the latter statement suggests, mixed movements raise a number of important
human rights and protection challenges. One of the most significant of those
challenges is to ensure that those people who have a claim to refugee status are given
the opportunity to seek asylum and are able to benefit from the protection that this
1
An earlier version of this paper, „A long and winding road‟, was prepared as a background document
for a regional conference titled „Refugee Protection and International Migration: Mixed Movements
and Irregular Migration from the East and Horn of Africa and Great Lakes Region to Southern Africa‟.
The conference was held in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in September 2010 and convened by UNHCR
and IOM. The paper has benefited from extensive comments by staff members from both
organizations.
1
status affords, including protection against refoulement (i.e. involuntary return to a
country where their life or liberty would be at risk).
Mixed migratory movements often involve people who, while not having a valid
claim to refugee status, nevertheless find themselves in situations of vulnerability and
at risk of human rights violations. Some have felt obliged to leave their own country
as a result of governance and development failures. Some have developed protection
and humanitarian needs as a result of abuses suffered in the course of their journey,
often at the hands of smugglers, traffickers and unscrupulous employers.
Others have been subject to harsh forms of detention, relocation or deportation as a
result of their irregular status. A proportion of these people have specific needs:
unaccompanied and separated children, single women, the elderly and infirm, and
victims of trafficking, for example.
The phenomenon of mixed movements has also prompted a growing recognition of
the fact that a single individual may be motivated to leave his or her country by a
variety of different economic, social, political and personal considerations. According
to one analysis, “often poverty, inequality and conflict co-exist … those who flee a
country where conflict, persecution and discrimination are rife, for example, may also
be trying to escape dire economic circumstances” (Van Hear et al 2009: 1).
The need to develop an international strategy to combat both the human security and
state security challenges posed by mixed movements has been recognized for at least
a decade. In 2000, for example, joint papers drafted by UNHCR, IOM and
International Labour Organization (ILO) considered the policy and protection
implications of the „migration-asylum nexus‟ (UNHCR 2001).2
Most recently, international efforts to address the dilemmas posed by mixed
movements have gathered further pace. In June 2006, UNHCR introduced a “10-Point
Plan of Action” on refugee protection and mixed movements, which set out the key
issues that should be addressed in such situations (UNHCR 2007). For its part, IOM
promotes a comprehensive approach to mixed migration flows, within the broad
context of migration management, with the aim of meeting the varying protection,
assistance and services needs of individuals and different groups of migrants (IOM
2009 and 2009).
Recent research
There has been a growing recognition of the need to develop a collaborative
international response to mixed movements from the East and Horn of Africa and the
Great Lakes region to the southern part of the continent, based on an understanding
that the region‟s refugee protection and migration management systems have not
always been able to respond consistently and adequately to this phenomenon.
2 In 2008, UNHCR moved away from using this term, arguing that it had become too closely
associated with the migration control agenda of the industrialized states. An alternative concept,
„refugee protection and international migration‟ was introduced to replace it. See (Crisp 2008).
2
A number of national, bilateral and regional initiatives have already been established
by states and international organizations in order to address this issue. Some of these
initiatives have also produced detailed research findings regarding the nature, scope
and dynamics of mixed movements in the region, as well as important insights with
respect to the difficult challenges that the international community faces in responding
to such movements.
IOM published one of the earliest studies of trafficking in the Southern African region
in 2003, focusing on the trade in women and children for sexual exploitation (Martens
et al. 2003). This was followed in 2009 by one of the most comprehensive studies on
trafficking to date, which detailed the irregular movement of men from the East and
Horn of Africa to Southern Africa, titled “In Pursuit of the Southern Dream” (IOM
2009b).
Another important document is the April 2008 Report of the Tanzanian Ministerial
Task Force on Irregular Migration into and through Tanzania (TMTF 2008), which
focuses on the particular challenges confronting Tanzania as a transit country for
people on their way to Southern Africa. UNHCR has also recently completed a review
of mixed-movement challenges and UNHCR's response to them in Malawi,
Mozambique and South Africa (Crisp and Kiragu 2010).
Academic researchers have made an important contribution to the debate on mixed
movement in the region. Members of the Forced Migration Studies Programme
(FMSP) at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg, for example, have produced
numerous studies on the issue, focusing particularly but not exclusively on the
estimated 1.5 million Zimbabweans who have moved to South Africa.3 The findings
underline the strain that this massive influx has placed on the country‟s asylum and
border management system (Amit et al.2009; Amit 2010a).
Despite such enquiries and with few exceptions, there is still a shortage of accurate
and timely data on the mixed movements examined in this paper. This is in part a
reflection of the fact that the mixed-movement policy debate (and consequently
research funding) has in recent years been dominated by Europe‟s concern about the
arrival of irregular migrants through the Mediterranean region.
The issues of irregular and mixed movements in developing regions have been subject
to much less scrutiny. Thus one recent study suggested that “the quality of data
available in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia appears too poor to reliably assess the
scale of migration flows in [these] countries” (Kiwanuka and Monson 2009: 7).
Of particular concern is the dearth of information available concerning the nature and
scope of migratory movements from the Great Lakes region. The International
Migration Institute (IMI) at the University of Oxford, in partnership with the
University of Lubumbashi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is
3 The exact number of Zimbabwean migrants is a question of some controversy, with some
commentators claiming there may be three million. However, FMSP has repeatedly and persuasively
argued that there are likely to be a maximum of 1.5 million Zimbabweans in South Africa (Polzer in
News 24, 2009)
3
currently researching Congolese migration, but only preliminary findings are
available so far.4
The historical context
Migration has long been an integral feature of society and the economy in the region
that stretches from Eritrea to South Africa. While those patterns of migration pre-date
the colonial period, the era of European rule was significant because it established
new and artificial borders that cut across established communities, clans and ethnic
groups. The colonial era also witnessed the introduction of large-scale commercial
enterprises, particularly mining and farming, that required a cheap, flexible and often
migrant labour force in order to generate the high profit margins demanded by their
managers and shareholders.
By 1970, when most African states had attained independence, there continued to be
large numbers of male labour migrants in the South African mines, coming from as
far north as Tanzania. Mining centres in Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe
were also centres of labour migration. Similarly, the commercial farming industry in
Southern Africa has long depended on labour migration, often seasonal, circular and
informal in nature. The restructuring of the region‟s mining industries in the 1990s
and the end of the apartheid regime in South Africa changed the pattern of labour
migration, reducing the opportunities for contracted and regularized work. But these
developments did not reduce the region‟s reliance on migration.
Indeed, migration continues to be an important livelihood strategy for many lowincome households and also remains critical to the continued viability and
profitability of many businesses. As Crush concluded in 2005, “systems of labour
migration are deeply entrenched in Southern Africa. Governments can and have tried
to do away with the system …[but] stopping legal migration leads to increased illegal
migration” (Crush et al: 5).
The “deeply entrenched” nature of these movements remains a very pertinent
consideration. In the Horn of Africa, for example, levels of human security remain
generally low, prompting significant numbers of people to consider leaving their
community and country, while mass media has made the wealth and opportunities that
exist abroad more visible. Technology and transnational networks have also prompted
and facilitated the movement of people across international borders.
Alongside this long history of labour migration is the more recent phenomenon of
refugee flight and protection. During the liberation struggles in countries such as
Angola, Mozambique Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, large numbers of
refugees were hosted by neighbouring and nearby states.
The post-independence civil wars in Angola and Mozambique also witnessed massive
refugee outflows. By the end of the Mozambican civil war, some 1.7 million refugees
4 One exception is Jonny Steinberg's literature survey “A Mixed Reception: Mozambican and
Congolese Refugees in South Africa” (2005).
4
were being hosted by neighbouring southern African countries, over one million of
them in Malawi alone. When peace was restored to Angola in 2002, nearly 500,000
refugees from that country were to be found in the Republic of the Congo, DRC,
Namibia and Zambia.
Eastern Africa has a similarly significant record of refugee movements. Tanzania, for
example, has hosted successive waves of refugees from countries such as Burundi,
DRC, Mozambique and Rwanda, with their number reaching 750,000 at certain points
in time. Kenya currently hosts a massive and still-growing population of refugees
from Somalia (over 300,000) as well as a much smaller number from southern Sudan.
In the Great Lakes region, large numbers of refugees from Burundi, DRC and Rwanda
have been engaging in a highly complex pattern of flight and return throughout the
past two decades. And in the Horn of Africa, all the countries concerned – Djibouti,
Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia – have produced and/or hosted large numbers of
refugees in the recent past.
In the region examined in this paper, therefore, mobility is an important survival and
poverty-reduction strategy for large (and potentially growing) numbers of people. For
governments and international organizations, this situation presents a range of
challenges and opportunities: to use migration as a regional development tool; to
promote the rights of migrants; to address the issue of irregular migration; and to
counter the activities of criminal networks engaged in human smuggling and
trafficking.
The legal context
The rights of refugees and migrants – and the duty of states to respect those rights –
are codified in a number of international legal instruments. Some of the people
involved in mixed movements to Southern Africa are considered to be refugees under
the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1969 OAU Refugee Convention. These
instruments define a refugee as someone who is obliged to remain outside of their
country of origin due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or as a result of external
aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order
in their state of origin.
Mixed movements also include people who have been recognized as refugees in a
country of first asylum, but who have moved on to another state in order to access
better protection and solutions, and/or improved livelihoods and family reunion
opportunities.
States have recognized the vulnerability and risks to migrants working abroad, and the
1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families (ICRMW) provides a framework for ensuring that
their rights are respected. These specific protections are reinforced by the broader
body of international human rights law, which applies to all migrants (and refugees),
irrespective of their status or mode of travel.
5
Instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the
African Charter on Human and People‟s Rights, provide additional protection to
specific categories of people who are involved in mixed movements.
Many other international instruments are relevant when considering the movement of
people who are smuggled or trafficked. These include the two „Palermo Protocols‟ of
2000, i.e., the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
especially Women and Children (The Trafficking Protocol) and the Protocol against
the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (The Smuggling Protocol).
While many of the states included in the scope of this paper are parties to the key
international instruments outlined above, it must be acknowledged that the provisions
of those instruments are not always implemented or respected in practice. Many states
lack the capacity, including the financial and technical resources, required to exercise
the protective responsibilities that they have assumed.
In some instances, the political will to do so is also lacking. An important issue for the
region is thus to consider how to promote the ratification of relevant legal
instruments, encourage the lifting of existing reservations to them and address the
disconnect that sometimes exists between law, policy and practice.
Scope and dynamics of mixed movement
The extent of mixed and irregular movement to Southern Africa is extremely and
inherently difficult to quantify. Those figures that do exist consequently have a
limited degree of accuracy.
IOM has estimated that at least 17,000-20,000 men are smuggled from the East and
Horn of Africa to Southern Africa every year, based on an assumption that 60 per cent
of Ethiopians and 80 per cent of Somalis who move south pass through the Dzaleka
refugee camp in Malawi (IOM 2009b). A 2003 report by IOM estimated that 1,000
children and women were trafficked from Mozambique to South Africa every year for
the purpose of exploitative labour and commercial sex work, a figure that is still used
as a basis for policy discussions (Martens et al. 2003; IRIN 2010a).
A similar difficulty confronts any attempt to understand the scale of mixed
movements to countries of destination. In South Africa, for example, the debate over
the number of undocumented arrivals has seen estimates grow “from the barely
plausible to the outrageous” (Crush et al 2005: 12), with some media reports claiming
that there may be as many as 9.84 million irregular migrants in South Africa! The
Human Sciences Research Council has arrived at a figure of 4.1 million, but other
researchers have argued that this figure is still an overestimate (Crush et al. 2005;
News 24 2009).
The following overview looks at the dynamics of mixed movements in source
countries, countries of transit and countries of destination. However, it is important to
stress that these categories are not discrete but overlapping, and that some locations
may be simultaneously be places of origin, transit and destination. Some transit
6
countries – such as Kenya and Mozambique – are also migrant destinations. Some
source countries – including Burundi and the DRC – are also used as transit countries
by smugglers moving people from the Horn of Africa.
Destination countries may also be transit countries, as is the case with people who
move on from South Africa to extra-regional destinations in Europe, North America
or Australia. It is also likely that the objectives of some refugees, asylum seekers and
migrants change in the process of their journey. A refugee originally intending to
travel to South Africa, for example, may decide to stay and seek asylum and remain in
Malawi or Mozambique, or may eventually decide to move onwards in an irregular
manner, sometimes by means of smuggling networks.
Countries of origin
The Horn of Africa
According to UNHCR, Somalia “remains one of the most insecure places in the
world, with an unprecedented humanitarian crisis” (UNHCR 2010a). In particular,
escalating fighting in the past year between the Transitional Federal Government and
Islamist insurgents Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam in southern and central Somalia has
exacerbated internal displacement and refugee flight. The areas of Puntland and
Somaliland are relatively calm in comparison, but are now affected by mixed
movements of people from Somalia and other countries in the region, heading in
general to Yemen, across the Gulf of Aden.
Somalis leave their country for a variety of reasons, the primary and most obvious of
them being to avoid the generalized violence and serious human rights violations that
currently afflict the southern and central parts of the country. They also move to
escape from specific and personal persecutory threats as a result of their political
affiliation, clan membership and gender, to evade forced conscription or because the
war has prevented them from having access to basic needs such as food, medical
services, healthcare and livelihoods.
Most Somali refugees cross first from Somalia into Kenya, where the overwhelming
majority are hosted in crowded conditions in the Dadaab refugee camps. Some move,
either via Dadaab or directly, to the Kenyan capital of Nairobi, where there is a large
Somali community and where it is possible to save or borrow enough money to pay
for an onward journey, usually through Tanzania, Malawi and Mozambique.
Economic, educational and family considerations play a significant role in shaping the
southward movement of Somalis, even if the initial trigger for movement is to escape
from violence.
The movement of people from Eritrea and Ethiopia would appear to more complex in
nature. On the one hand, these countries are not affected by the kind of violence and
displacement that currently characterizes Somalia. There is also evidence that in
Ethiopia, young men in poor rural areas are actively targeted by smuggling networks,
lured by the promise of better livelihoods opportunities in South Africa. On the other
hand, UNHCR statistics demonstrate that significant numbers of Eritrean and
Ethiopian refugees are still to be found in neighbouring countries and further a field.
7
Among the Somalis and Ethiopians who reach South Africa, an estimated fifty percent
continue their journey onward to destinations beyond the African continent (IOM
2009). The southward flow from the Horn of Africa, of course, is only part of the
picture. Others head north, while many move east across the Gulf of Aden to Yemen.
Available statistics from the Mixed Migration Task Force5 indicate that in 2008, more
than 50,000 people made the perilous voyage in smugglers‟ boats. At least 590
drowned and another 359 were reported missing along the different East Africa
migration routes.
The Great Lakes region
Mixed movements from the Great Lakes region are to date poorly documented. The
cycle of violence in the DRC since the mid-1990s has generated large numbers of
refugees and asylum seekers. Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi all host
sizeable Congolese refugee populations (approximately 60,000 each in Tanzania,
Uganda and Rwanda, and over 20,000 in Burundi).
Although the 2006 elections in the DRC, following the peace agreement that brought
the second Congolese war to an end, have brought relative stability to some areas of
the country, other regions continue to suffer from violence and displacement. Attacks
by the Lord‟s Resistance Army in north-eastern DRC, complex conflicts related to
identity, ethnicity and nationality, as well as rising levels of sexual violence in the
Kivus, have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in that country. There is a concern
that the lack of protection experienced by many Congolese citizens may be
perpetuated and reinforced by a possible withdrawal of MONUSCO forces in 2011.
Since the 1990s, there has been a considerable growth in the movement of people
from the DRC to South Africa. It is estimated that there are currently around 3040,000 Congolese in South Africa and many, particularly those from eastern DRC
(the Kivus) have strong claims to refugee status. Some Congolese, including those
who leave the DRC for refugee-related reasons, also leave with the aim of finding
better employment and educational opportunities.
These factors have influenced the demographic composition of the movement from
the DRC to South Africa, with one study suggesting that “forced migration to South
Africa from the DRC appears to be a predominantly young, urban, male and middleclass phenomenon” (Steinberg 2005: iv).
The DRC‟s long and porous border (with nine other states) also plays a role in
shaping the contours of Congolese movement. Temporary and seasonal movements to
Angola (to work in diamond mining areas), as well as to Burundi and Rwanda, reflect
both long-standing migrant labour patterns and the dynamics of forced displacement.
5
The Mixed Migration Task Force (MMTF) was formed in 2007 to address the needs of migrants,
refugees and asylum seekers crossing the Gulf of Aden. The Task Force members include the Danish
Refugee Council (DRC), Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), IOM, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF
and UNOCHA.
8
With regard to Burundi and Rwanda, levels of displacement have diminished
significantly in recent years. Even so, both countries continue to be affected by
refugee movements. At the end of 2009, UNHCR counted 287,000 Burundian
refugees worldwide, the largest number in Tanzania, where more than 160,000
members of the „1972 caseload‟ have now become naturalized Tanzanian citizens.
Around 72,000 Rwandan refugees are to be found in the Republic of the Congo, the
DRC and Uganda. Burundi and Rwanda also have significant numbers of refugees
living on their territory, some 95,000 and 55,000 respectively, most of them from the
DRC.
Zimbabwe
The movement of Zimbabweans to other Southern African states – above all to South
Africa – has been the subject of considerable international attention. Recent research
by academics and NGOs has highlighted the vulnerability of these Zimbabweans,
many of whom have fallen into a “protection gap” because most are not recognized as
refugees in South Africa and yet are confronted with numerous hardships and dangers
both during their journey and after arrival. (see e.g. Bloch 2008; Betts and Kaytaz
2009;).
As a recent IOM report has underlined, the factors shaping Zimbabwean movement
are multiple and interrelated (IOM 2010). The country‟s economy, society and
political system have undergone considerable upheaval in recent years, prompting
large-scale cross-border and circular movements of people including, shoppers,
traders, migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children.
Although there have been some improvements in the economic and political situation
since the ZANU/MDC power-sharing agreement was entered into in 2009, there does
not yet appear to have been a significant reduction in the number of arrivals in South
Africa.
Other source countries
Southern Africa has also witnessed mixed movements from other countries of origin.
There are, for example, around 7,000 recognized Angolan refugees and 13,000
Angolan asylum seekers in South Africa, with larger numbers in the DRC and Zambia
and smaller populations in Namibia and Botswana. Migrants also move to South
Africa from other Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) countries.
Recent years have also seen a notable growth in migratory flows from outside Africa,
involving Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani nationals. There have been several recent
reports from Tanzania of Bangladeshi and Pakistani irregular migrants being
apprehended on their way to Mozambique and South Africa. The southerly migration
of these groups may involve contract labourers already working in the Gulf or East
Africa who subsequently move onwards. Very little is known about the origin or
organization of such movements and further research into these issues would be of
considerable value to the formulation of appropriate refugee protection and migration
management responses.
9
In transit to the south
Understanding the journeys taken by refugees, asylum seekers and migrants travelling
to Southern Africa is a complex task as such mixed movements are extremely
dynamic, with the routes used by smugglers often changing at short notice in order to
evade border controls and checkpoints that have been introduced to intercept irregular
migrants (IOM 2009b: 41).
The costs associated with such movements vary considerably and are dependent on
the final destination and mode of transport. For example, Ethiopians interviewed by
the TMTF reported paying a fare of USD 850 to move from the Kenya/Tanzania
border to Malawi, or USD 1,700 to South Africa (TMTF 2008: 13).
Air travel
IOM‟s 2009 study of the smuggling of male migrants, refugees and asylum seekers to
South Africa suggests that air travel plays a significant role in the movement of
Ethiopians and Somalis to Southern Africa. Some 39 per cent of Ethiopians and 10
per cent of Somalis interviewed used air transport for part of their journey, usually
flying to the capitals of South Africa‟s neighbouring states (Harare, Maputo,
Lilongwe or Lusaka) from Nairobi (IOM 2009b: 42-43).
These journeys usually continue overland, with Mozambique being the last transit
country visited on the way to South Africa for 60 per cent of the Ethiopians and for 80
per cent of the Somalis interviewed. The remainder crossed at the Zimbabwe-South
Africa border (IOM 2009b: 43). These findings suggest that more attention needs to
be paid to the use of air travel as a component of the mixed migratory movement to
Southern Africa.
Sea travel
Migration sea routes from the East and Horn of Africa to the southern part of the
continent have become increasingly important. This is likely to be a response to the
growing difficulty of travelling and crossing borders by land. IOM‟s 2009 study, “In
Pursuit of the Southern Dream”, suggests that in 2009 around one-third of all Somalis
and Ethiopians travelling to South Africa used a sea route for at least part of their
journey.
Several different sea routes have been used by refugees and migrants. They include
travel by boat from Mogadishu and Kismayo in Somalia to Mombasa in Kenya, and
then from Mombasa to Pemba or Mocimboa in Mozambique, or to a variety of
destinations in Tanzania, including Dar es Salaam, Tanga and Bagamayo.
There is growing evidence to indicate that smugglers are increasingly bypassing East
African land routes and arranging for their clients to travel directly by boat from
Kismayo in Somalia to Cabo Delgado in Mozambique. It is important to note that sea
routes are often circuitous and include additional movements by land. For example,
both IOM‟s research and the TMTF survey found that on arrival in Mozambique by
10
boat, smugglers would then move their clients back to Tanzania by land so that they
could later enter Malawi (IOM 2009b: 46: TMTF 2008).
Travel by sea involves a number of protection risks and humanitarian concerns.
IOM‟s research indicates that most of the refugees, asylum seekers and migrants
moving from the Horn of Africa by boat are given no food or water for the duration of
the journey, which often lasts several days (IOM 2009b: 44). New arrivals are often
left without shelter once they have disembarked at a port and are thus vulnerable to
exploitation, robbery and harassment, sometimes by law enforcement agents.
Fatalities along this coastal Indian Ocean route do not yet compare with the number of
people left dead on the notoriously dangerous Gulf of Aden and Red Sea passages
between the Horn and Yemen. However, recent reports suggest that as the numbers
using this route increase, the number of fatalities will also rise. In the first two weeks
of June 2010, more than 20 people drowned off the coast at Tanga, Tanzania, and at
least nine Somalis died (with more than 40 missing and feared dead) off Cabo
Delgado, Mozambique.
Overland travel
IOM‟s research indicates that 93 per cent of Somalis and 89 per cent of Ethiopians
travelled overland for at least some part of their journey to Southern Africa (IOM
2009a: 49). The figures for mixed migratory movements from the Great Lakes are
likely to be comparable if not higher, given the lack of direct access to sea routes.
Overland routes are often circuitous, and may pass through Uganda, Rwanda,
Burundi, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. This in part reflects the way
in which smugglers are adapting to changing conditions in order to avoid detection,
frequently switching between different unofficial tracks or “panyas”.
Overland travel is undertaken in buses, trucks, containers, cars and also on foot. In the
course of their journey, the physical and mental condition of the people concerned
often deteriorates and they are exposed to severe abuse and exploitation. It is
impossible to say how many people set out on such journeys but lose their lives in the
process.
Smuggling networks appear to bring their clients together in large groups so as to save
costs and maximize profits. IOM and UNHCR research suggests that people may start
out in relatively small groups of between eight and 30 people, but may be part of a
group of more than 100 people by the time they have reached the Mozambique border
(IOM 2009b: 50-51; Crisp and Kiragu 2010). As these groups expand, encompassing
people from a variety of source countries and with different motivations for moving,
the task of identifying those with protection needs and providing them with
appropriate services and assistance becomes increasingly difficult.
Overland journeys from the Horn of Africa to Southern Africa tend to begin in Kenya
for both Somalis and Ethiopians, where there are well-established Somali and
Ethiopian communities, both in the Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps and in
Nairobi. They then cross into Tanzania. In 2008, the TMTF recorded a total of 74,215
11
“officially identified” irregular arrivals in Tanzania, suggesting that the actual figure
“could run into hundreds of thousands of persons” if the total number of Great Lakes
citizens irregularly settling in the north-west of the country is included (TMTF 2008).
Some of these individuals have an interest in settling in Tanzania and do not continue
towards Southern Africa. Even so, Tanzania regularly apprehends considerable
numbers of irregular migrants moving to the south. In January 2008, 1,289 migrants
from 12 different states were being held in Tanzanian detention centres (TMTF 2008),
most of them Ethiopians.
So far, IOM has assisted over 1,000 Ethiopians to go home through its Assisted
Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programs (VARRP) for stranded migrants. Many
of those detained in Tanzania, however, move onwards through Malawi, Zambia,
Zimbabwe and Mozambique, with the majority of them then crossing through the
Zimbabwean or Mozambican borders to South Africa.
One difficult issue faced by all transit states is the question of how to deal with those
arriving in an irregular manner who are detected and apprehended. Return to the
country of origin is often not possible (for reasons of capacity as well as protection
concerns), and many of them, if deported across the border, simply make repeated
attempts to move on until their efforts are successful. Similarly, states in the region do
not generally find it possible to return recognized refugees to their country of first
asylum.
In Malawi, there is evidence to suggest that people moving south use existing refugee
facilities as temporary „refueling‟ or „rest and recuperation‟ facilities. Dzaleka refugee
camp in Malawi has a separate transit area where new arrivals from the Horn of
Africa stay for a few days or weeks before continuing their journey. As indicated
earlier, IOM‟s research estimated that 60 per cent of Ethiopian and 80 per cent of
Somalis heading south pass through the camp.
The movement of Zimbabweans to South Africa has, in view of the number of people
involved, important implications for all foreign nationals who are making their way to
the same destination. In 2009, special visa waiver procedures were introduced,
allowing Zimbabweans to travel to South Africa and to remain for up to 90 days with
the right to work. However, while entry to South Africa is free, Zimbabwean
passports and exit visas are expensive to obtain and as a result many Zimbabweans
continue to arrive irregularly (often cutting their way through a razor wire fence) and
apply for an asylum permit on arrival.
The border area is a dangerous one, characterized by the presence of malaisha (taxi
drivers) and magumaguma (scavengers). The magumaguma are feared for their
violent attacks on new arrivals while the malaisha are responsible for spreading
misinformation about entry procedures, organizing cross-border transport and
encouraging the movement of unaccompanied children – a problem that appears to be
growing in scale.
12
Onward refugee movement
It is important to note that mixed migratory movements from the East and Horn of
Africa and the Great Lakes region involve a significant (but unknown) number of
refugees who are moving on from their country of first asylum. This dynamic poses
particular challenges for transit countries and appears to be especially prevalent
amongst Somali refugees.
There is considerable onward movement, for example, from the Dadaab and Kakuma
camps in Kenya, where population pressures, very limited access to livelihoods and
restrictions on freedom of movement mean that many refugees, frustrated at the lack
of any immediate solution to their plight, choose to move on. Similarly, there is
evidence to suggest that some of the Burundian, Congolese, Eritreans and Rwandans
moving south are people who have chosen to leave refugee camps in the region to
look for better protection and opportunities elsewhere.
These movements present several protection challenges. Recognized refugees cannot
be returned to their country of origin and must be protected against refoulement.
Moreover, states in the region generally lack the capacity to identify and return
refugees who are engaged in onward movement, while countries of first asylum are
unwilling to readmit refugees who have left their territory. Complicating the issue
further is an essentially unresolved international debate concerning the notion of
“effective protection” and the circumstances under which states and UNHCR consider
it legitimate for a refugee to engage in onward movement.
Destination countries
South Africa is the most important destination country for mixed movements
southward from the East and Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region, as well as
from Zimbabwe and other Southern African countries. As discussed earlier, the exact
number of foreign nationals in South Africa is a controversial issue, but has been
roughly estimated by Witwatersrand University to involve at least 1.5 million
Zimbabweans, 100,000 people from the Horn, 50,000 from the Great Lakes region,
20,000 Angolans and additional numbers from other SADC countries.
South Africa is currently the largest single recipient of asylum applications in the
world. It has more than 300,000 asylum cases pending, half of them from
Zimbabweans. It also has a population of some 48,000 registered refugees.
The number of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants arriving in South Africa
presents a number of formidable challenges to the South African state and society.
The country is faced with high levels of internal rural-to-urban migration. Levels of
unemployment are high amongst South African citizens – around 27 per cent
according to the ILO.
The country‟s powerful trade union movement is concerned to protect the rights of its
members, while the country‟s vibrant civil society has persistently challenged the
government in relation to its treatment of foreign nationals. In May 2008, moreover,
the country was convulsed by a spate of xenophobic violence that left dozens of non-
13
South Africans (and a smaller number of citizens) dead, and which displaced an
estimated 100,000 people.
Under South African legislation, foreign nationals may remain and work in the
country if they submit a claim to refugee status and register for a renewable asylum
permit. The unfortunate outcome of this arrangement has been that large numbers of
people without a valid claim to refugee status have entered and overwhelmed the
asylum system, leading to a decline in the quality and efficiency of refugee status
determination and the probable denial of refugee status and its entitlements to some
people who deserve it. In the absence of regular migration alternatives, the asylum
channel has become the only way to stay in the country.
While South Africa is clearly the most important destination country in the region
covered by this paper, it would be wrong to give the impression that the people
involved in mixed migratory movements invariably end their journey in that country.
Refugees, asylum seekers and migrants – either intentionally or because they are
unable to complete their intended journey – also take up residence in states throughout
East Africa, the Horn and Great Lakes region.
Malawi, for example, has a long-term population of refugees, primarily from the
Great Lakes region, living at the Dzaleka refugee camp, while a similar population of
refugees and asylum seekers is to be found at the Maratane refugee camp near the
northern Mozambican city of Nampula. In contrast to those from the Great Lakes
region, people originating from the Horn of Africa tend to remain in these camps for
just a short period of time before continuing their journey to South Africa. A
significant number then use South Africa as a point of departure for onward
movements to destinations beyond the African continent.
Protection, assistance and security challenges
Mixed migratory movements from the East and Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes
region involve many protection and assistance challenges. As discussed earlier in this
paper, some of those moving south are doing so to escape from persecution, violence
and poor governance in their country of origin, while others are refugees who have
moved on from their country of first asylum in search of better protection, long-term
solutions and improved opportunities. Many people also move for a combination of
other reasons ranging from socio-economic to environmental and climatic and
political factors.
These movements include people who become vulnerable and develop protection
needs in the course of their journey, sometimes as a result of exploitation by
smugglers and, more rarely, by traffickers. Some of those travelling in mixed
migratory movements may also encounter the threat of discrimination, extortion and
xenophobia once they have arrived in their country of destination.
Migration, especially irregular movement from countries with different and distinct
cultures, is also an emotive political issue, with citizens in receiving countries
expecting their governments to address the issue in a way that protects their interests
and allays their fears. In general, however, the public, government and even civil
14
society are inadequately informed about the nature of mixed movements and the
protection, service and assistance needs of people who are on the move.
As well as raising many protection and humanitarian concerns, the irregular
movement of people to Southern Africa has important implications for the security of
states and their citizens. Governments have an evident interest in knowing the identity
of any foreign nationals on their territory and in preventing the entry of any new
arrivals who do not meet the country‟s immigration requirements. Irregular and
uncontrolled movement renders that task impossible.
States cannot simply ignore irregular migration and mixed movements through their
territory. Responding only with enforcement measures and efforts to obstruct or deter
movements, however, tends to divert the flow to new and more dangerous routes and
drive migrants further underground, making it even more difficult for them to access
the support they need. To properly manage this challenge, governments need effective
mechanisms to differentiate between refugees, asylum seekers, trafficked persons and
other migrants, as well as the capacity to deliver the protection, assistance and
services appropriate to their needs.
Protection-sensitive entry systems
States have a sovereign right to determine who to admit and who to exclude or expel
from their territory. However, their legitimate concern to control unauthorized entry
must be exercised within the limits of international human rights and refugee law,
including respect for the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.
A refugee protection and migration management system that ensures respect for the
human rights of people on the move should also be based on other values, including
non-discrimination, family unity, due process and the principles of humanitarian
action. Such systems should aim to maximize the economic, social and other benefits
of migration for the home and host countries and the migrants themselves, minimize
the negative consequences and achieve a balanced approach to irregular migration.
Developing protection-sensitive entry systems and rights-based approaches founded
on appropriate national refugee legislation and administrative procedures is an
essential first step if states are to meet these obligations. Such systems reduce the
vulnerability of new arrivals and make borders more safe and secure by encouraging
refugees, asylum seekers and others to make use of formal border crossings.
To make such entry systems effective, it is crucial to ensure that border control and
immigration officials are provided with training in relation to their protection
obligations. In Zambia, for example, UNHCR collaborates with IOM and the National
Commissioner for Refugees in the provision of training to relevant officials. In
Tanzania, the Centre for the Study of Forced Migration, at the School of Law,
University of Dar Es Salaam, is an important resource, providing various training
courses to immigration and other officials.
In response to requests from African governments to help strengthen their capacity
for comprehensive migration management, IOM has collaborated with the
15
government of Tanzania to establish the African Capacity Building Center (ACBC) in
Moshi, Tanzania. The Center promotes international understanding of migrants and
migration issues and sound migration governance, including through the
development, delivery and institutionalization of migration management training
programmes, both in Moshi and in the countries concerned.
In Angola, a joint IOM/UNHCR border project with the Angolan Department of
Immigration has been developed to strengthen official capacity in the areas of refugee
protection and migration management. Three training sessions involving 335 officials
have been held, focusing on the identification and referral of asylum seekers and
migrants with specific needs.
But legislation and training alone are not enough. An effective protection-sensitive
entry system requires a country to have an adequate number of official border
crossings (otherwise people will use informal entry points) as well as the vehicles,
fuel supply and personnel required to patrol the long and porous frontiers that
characterize this part of Africa.
Equally important are measures to control bribery, corruption and extortion in border
crossing procedures. In this respect states have an interest in and an obligation to
ensure that immigration officials and security personnel are adequately and regularly
paid, properly trained and held accountable for their actions.
A further concern is that of language. The vast majority of people moving south from
the Horn of Africa and Great Lakes region do not speak English or Portuguese.
Effective communication between border officials and new arrivals is essential if
entry systems are to function in a protection-sensitive manner.
In addition to the provision of language training, leaflets and signs in relevant
languages could be made available at entry points and reception centres, so as to
provide migrants, refugees and asylum seekers with accurate information about their
rights, obligations, as well as the dangers of clandestine movement and the
possibilities of legal migration. IOM, for example, has established information and
education programmes in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya that target potential migrants,
focusing on the dangers associated with smuggling and trafficking.
Status determination and profiling
Protection-sensitive entry systems must be complemented with processes and
procedures that are able to identify those new arrivals who have a claim to refugee
status under the UN or OAU Refugee Conventions or who have other protection
needs. UNHCR‟s 10-Point Plan recommends the establishment of initial profiling and
referral mechanisms that provide “a good indication of a person‟s motives for
departure and ensures that the person‟s situation is met with the most appropriate
response” (UNHCR 2007a).
It is also essential to ensure that RSD procedures are fair, thorough and timely, so
refugees can be granted asylum, protected from refoulement and provided with
durable solutions opportunities. Moreover, if people who are in need of protection
16
cannot access an RSD procedure, have to wait for long periods before a decision on
their case is made or are unable to lodge an appeal against a negative decision, then
they are much more likely to engage in onward movement to another state.
The establishment of effective profiling, referral and RSD procedures is likely to
prove particularly problematic if large numbers of people who are moving for the
purpose of work can only gain access to the labour market by submitting an asylum
application. This is essentially the case in South Africa, where, according to one
study, “reform of the refugee reception system without broader reform of South
Africa‟s immigration management system is unlikely to be effective . . . the refugee
system must stand separate from and parallel to the system of immigration control”
(Amit 2010b: 78).
The need for such an approach was fully acknowledged in a speech given by the
Deputy Minister for Home Affairs, Mr. Malusi Gigaba, on World Refugee Day in
June 2010. “The challenge we are facing,” he observed, “is that many economic
migrants take advantage of the asylum route in order to regularize their stay in South
Africa simply because there are not other options. This results in the asylum system
being clogged up. “What is certain,” he concluded, “is that the South African
immigration policy cannot remain the same way as it currently is.”
As this statement suggests, an important means of reducing the strains placed on
national asylum systems can be the establishment of legal migration channels, thereby
averting the need for people without protection needs to claim refugee status.
Streamlined or fast-track processes for manifestly unfounded or well-founded claims
could also be developed with support from UNHCR so as to further alleviate the
pressure on asylum systems.
Assistance and services
Many of the challenges associated with mixed movements arise during the transit
phase, when refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are travelling through different
countries on their way to places of final destination. In many cases, those people are
in urgent need of food, water and shelter; legal advice and counselling; and
information about their options, including return and the submission of asylum
claims; as well as access to health care and other social services (especially where
children or other vulnerable groups are concerned).
Cooperation with civil society organizations is essential in this respect, as they are
often able to gain access to and win the trust of new arrivals, especially when those
are in an irregular situation. Such organizations may also represent an essential
conduit for building tolerance and understanding and easing tensions between
foreign nationals and the communities with whom they come into contact. Civil
society organizations also play an essential role as service providers.
Stranded migrants should receive particular attention in this context. The term
“stranded migrant” refers to individuals who have entered a country of transit or
destination, but who have not been granted the right to stay there, while at the same
time being unable to return to their own country or to move on to another state.
17
Their predicament may stem from an inability or unwillingness to provide evidence
of their nationality, combined with a refusal by states to admit or readmit them.
Inter-state cooperation is especially important so as to avoid situations in which
people are pushed backwards and forwards between two or more countries.
Detention and deportation
The detention of foreign nationals for irregular entry, especially when it involves
refugees and asylum seekers, raises a number of challenges and concerns. It is
essential to ensure that this practice conforms to national and international law and
human rights standards. Detention should only be used as a measure of last resort and
for the shortest possible period of time and should never be employed arbitrarily.
Unfortunately, some states in the region have been unable to ensure that detainees are
treated in accordance with the applicable standards. There is also evidence to suggest
that in certain states, some of those detained may have been in possession of valid
travel documents at the time of their arrest.
Effective safeguards are evidently required to prevent such mistakes from occurring.
Detained individuals should have access to international and civil society
organizations that can offer them protection, assistance and services and, where
possible, legal representation. More specifically, refugees and asylum seekers in
detention must have access to UNHCR, and other migrants should be able to access
consular officials from their country of origin.
Particular difficulties can arise, both for states and detainees, when the latter are held
for prolonged periods, often because they cannot, for one reason or another, be
returned to their country of origin, transit or first asylum. Similarly, standards for
lawful and humane detention are unlikely to be upheld in situations where irregular
arrivals are apprehended in a border area with no dedicated immigration detention
facilities, or without transport available to move them to another and more suitable
location. Consequently, they may be held in police stations or prisons together with
criminal detainees.
States have a right to deport foreign nationals who have entered a country in an
irregular manner if they do not have a need for international protection as refugees
or if their return would violate other international human rights obligations.
However, in making such decisions, states must comply with obligations set down in
international law.
In particular, due process is required to ensure that every individual’s claim to
international protection is properly assessed prior to removal and that no refugee is
at risk of refoulement. Even where persons are not in need of international
protection, return may nevertheless be impossible due to conditions in the country of
origin and practical logistical obstacles, such as the lack of commercial flights.
It is important that deportations and removals, when they occur, follow due process
and respect for human rights. Return should take place in safe, dignified and humane
conditions. Arbitrary and sudden deportations, particularly when targeted at specific
18
groups, are more likely to lead to serious human rights violations and deprive the
people concerned of an opportunity to prepare for their departure and reintegration in
their country of origin. Access to counselling, where available, is also important. The
practice of dumping deportees in remote border areas places them at risk and cannot
be accepted.
In terms of the mixed movements examined in this paper, deportation can raise both
practical and political issues. Mozambique, for example, regularly returns irregular
migrants to neighbouring Malawi, which does not have the capacity to return them to
Tanzania, the previous country of transit for most of those apprehended. In practice,
the majority of those deported to Malawi simply return to the border after a short
period of time and try once again to continue their irregular southward journey,
suggesting that the deportation exercise is somewhat fruitless.
Even if every state had the capacity and will to intercept and deport new arrivals to
their country of transit, origin or first asylum, there is little evidence to suggest that
this would “solve” the issue of mixed movements from the East and Horn of Africa
and the Great Lakes region. Since April 2009, for example, South Africa has observed
a moratorium on the deportation of Zimbabweans, recognizing that deportation is of
limited value (not to mention being a substantial expense and a serious logistical
challenge) when responding to a very large influx of people who are determined to
make their way to another country.
People with specific needs
Comprehensive refugee protection and migration management systems, while striving
to provide protection, assistance and services to all, must also meet the special needs
of some groups and individuals. Unaccompanied children, as well as victims of
trafficking, torture and trauma, are among those found within mixed migratory
movements who require a differentiated and focused response from states,
international organizations and other actors. Others requiring special protection and
assistance include victims of gender-based violence and other types of violence, the
sick and elderly and people with disabilities.
The extent and nature of child migration from the Horn of Africa and Great Lakes
region through East and Southern Africa is difficult to quantify or analyse as little
empirical evidence exists in relation to this issue. It seems likely that most refugee and
migrant children in Southern Africa originate from within the SADC region itself.
UNICEF, for example, estimates that there are around 20,000 child migrants in South
Africa, the majority of whom are from Zimbabwe. The TMTF survey of migrants
detained in Tanzania found 144 Somali detainees under 18 years of age (some 37 per
cent of the total number of Somalis surveyed), 64 of whom were under 15 (16 per
cent).
Such figures (although they are not fully consistent) suggest that the movement of
children across international borders in Southern Africa is a significant issue. If it is to
be addressed in an effective and equitable manner, adequate training and resources
will be required so as to ensure that the authorities can undertake a thorough Best
19
Interests Determination (BID) in relation to the future of such minors.
As with children, it is difficult to ascertain how many victims of trafficking are caught
up in mixed movements to Southern Africa. The overwhelming majority of refugees,
asylum seekers and migrants who take this route are young men, and IOM‟s 2009
report “In Pursuit of the Southern Dream” found no real evidence of the trafficking of
males from the Horn of Africa, although migrants were exposed to serious abuse and
violence while en route.
An earlier (2003) IOM report on the trafficking of women and girls for sexual
exploitation suggested that 1,000 Mozambican women and girls were transported to
South Africa every year for that purpose. Some commentators have also suggested
that South Africa acts as a hub for the trafficking of African women and girls to
Europe. By way of contrast, researchers at Witwatersrand University have challenged
the notion that trafficking to and from South Africa is a major problem and have
questioned the level of resources devoted to this issue by donor states.
Identifying the victims of trafficking can in any case present a significant challenge,
as all elements of the crime of “trafficking in persons”, as set out in the relevant
Palermo Protocol, may not be evident. Individuals may nevertheless be caught up in
dangerous and exploitative situations that place them at real and acute risk. Thus, the
provision of effective protection, assistance and services to such vulnerable migrants
should not be contingent upon whether they meet the legal definition of a trafficked
person.
State security, good governance and protection
Human smuggling is central to the mixed movements examined in this paper and is a
phenomenon that clearly exacerbates the problems of bribery, corruption and
extortion in the border crossing process. In this respect, the issue of mixed movement
is directly linked to the much broader challenges of good governance, state
transparency and accountability. According to one statement, smuggling creates “a
climate where public officials abuse their position for private gain. This impunity
corrodes the integrity and effectiveness of democratic government and ultimately
undermines its authority, neutrality and the rule of law” (IOM 2009a: 9).
It is evident that smugglers run well-organized, dynamic operations that involve a
constantly changing network of collaborators, including recruitment agents, truck
drivers and transporters, boat owners, providers of forged and stolen documents,
border guards, immigration and refugee officials, members of the police and military.
The available evidence, in fact, suggests that the number of trafficking victims in
Southern Africa is relatively small in comparison to those who depend upon
smugglers to organize their movement.
Human smuggling is also a lucrative illicit business. The annual revenue flow from
smuggling toward South Africa is estimated at around USD 40 million, the profits of
which are not only untaxed but which may also be used to fund other forms of
organized crime (Reuters 2010).
20
It has been suggested that up to 50 Somali smuggling groups currently control the
irregular migratory route to Southern Africa. Paradoxically, of course, while
smuggling is a criminal and often exploitative act, it also provides one means whereby
many Somalis can move to the relative safety, security and better economic
opportunities offered by South Africa. Hence the need exists for anti-smuggling
measures to be complemented by opening up legal migration channels and
establishing effective protection-sensitive entry systems and rights-based approaches.
The crime and corruption involved in human smuggling has serious protection as well
as security implications. Smugglers have an interest in maintaining control over their
„clients‟ so as to protect and boost their profits. In order to do so, they have to prevent
them from having direct contact with government officials, international organizations
and NGOs. Similarly, the business model and profits of the smugglers might well be
threatened if actual and potential clients had access to accurate information about their
rights, as well as the difficulties and dangers they might encounter on their journey.
Multilateral measures, including the regional harmonization of anti-smuggling
policies and procedures, as well as regular information sharing, are essential if this
problem is to be addressed. States that are not already parties to the Palermo Protocols
on smuggling and trafficking should be encouraged to ratify them. Developing
government capacities is also important. While trafficking in persons is a wellestablished concept, officials are often unaware of the concept of smuggling and the
legal protections offered by the Smuggling Protocol, suggesting the need for raising
the profile of this instrument and its requirements in the region.
Above all, measures to combat smuggling and trafficking should focus on punishing
the perpetrators of these activities and should not lead to the criminalization of
migration and those who are on the move. This is of particular importance in view of
the fact that the mixed movement to Southern Africa includes a significant proportion
of people who have a valid claim to refugee status under the terms of the 1951
Refugee Convention and 1969 OAU Refugee Convention, and should therefore not be
penalized for irregular entry to a state.
Finally, mixed movement may also have more direct and dramatic implications for
state security. Growing concerns have been expressed, for example, with respect to
the possible involvement of militants and extremists in the mixed movement from the
Horn of Africa to the southern tip of the continent.
In January 2007, Kenya closed its border with Somalia in response to the growing
number of people escaping from the escalating violence in southern and central
Somalia, including areas controlled by the fundamentalist movements Al-Shabaab and
Hizbul Islam. One of the reasons given for this border closure was the risk that the
refugee influxes could be used to camouflage the infiltration of extremists.
Fears of this kind were reinforced on 11 July 2010, when two bombs exploded in
Kampala, Uganda, killing 74 people as they were watching the World Cup final on
TV. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Al-Shabaab, which linked the act to
Uganda‟s involvement in peacekeeping activities in Somalia. Since that time,
UNHCR has expressed concerns about the increasingly hostile atmosphere
confronting Somali refugees throughout much of the region.
21
Deterrence, containment and mobility
In an effort to defend their sovereignty and security, many states in the region (as with
states in most other parts of the world) have introduced measures that are intended to
tighten their border controls and to prevent the arrival of irregular migrants on their
territory. Although some of the measures implemented in this context – such as
increased detention and deportation – may act as a temporary deterrent to irregular
movement and at the same time allay public fears, it is arguable as to whether they are
effective or strengthen state security in the longer term.
Recent experience has demonstrated that it is virtually impossible to contain a
population within its national borders when the drivers and incentives for departure
are so powerful. This is especially the case for countries in conflict in the East and
Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region, where borders are long and highly porous,
where states lack the resources and capacity to enforce stringent controls on
population movement, where smugglers have proved adept at establishing new
migration routes and where people who feel obliged to move are well connected to
global sources of information and money.
In this context, a purely control and enforcement-oriented approach to migration
management threatens to absorb a huge amount of state resources without a
corresponding diminution in the scale of the problem. Similar reservations must be
expressed in relation to the notion of confining refugees to camps and preventing their
onward movement both within and from their country of first asylum. Such policies
and practices do not contain refugees, but actually encourage their irregular
movement by restricting their ability to establish livelihoods and by forcing them to
rely on steadily declining levels of international assistance.
It is for this reason that UNHCR has in recent years launched a series of initiatives to
address and resolve the plight of people trapped in protracted refugee situations;
uphold the right of refugees to live and enjoy protection in urban areas; promote
refugee livelihoods and self-reliance; and to take fuller account of the mobility and
migration strategies of refugees themselves in the search for durable solutions (Long
2009, 2010a).
These approaches are particularly apposite in relation to those Somalis who, even if
they are granted refugee status and have access to international assistance,
nevertheless wish to continue their southward journey rather than remain in a camp in
their country of first asylum.
For such Somalis, the most meaningful form of protection is that which enables them
to exercise freedom of movement, live independently in urban centres, rejoin
members of their clan and community, establish their own livelihoods and gain access
to educational opportunities that were denied to them in their country of origin. Such
objectives suggest a need to rethink the meaning of long-established concepts such as
“refugee protection and solutions” in an increasingly globalized and mobilized world.
22
Alternative approaches
Rather than focusing solely on containment and deterrence, alternative strategies are
needed to address the issue of mixed movements to Southern Africa from the East and
Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region. On the basis of the analysis presented in
this paper, those strategies should:
recognize the legitimate concern of states to protect their sovereignty and
security;
uphold the provisions of international and regional refugee and human rights
law;
respect the principles of safe and humane migration management;
facilitate the cross-border movement of people in a legal, regular and orderly
manner;
meet the protection and assistance needs of refugees and migrants;
combat the smuggling networks and corruption that enable irregular
movement to thrive;
address the underlying causes of refugee flight and reduce the human security
challenges and economic inequalities that underpin current patterns of
southward movement; and
promote bilateral and regional cooperation and dialogue on refugee protection
and migration management strategies, including with civil society.
The following sections examine some recent approaches and initiatives that have
sought to put these principles into practice.
Action in places of origin
People do not normally set out on long, difficult, dangerous and expensive journeys
unless they have good reasons to do so. In the region covered by this paper, the
movement south is prompted by a number of considerations, including the fear of
being persecuted or subjected to serious human rights violations in their countries of
origin; the problems that many people experience in establishing peaceful, productive
and prosperous lives in such countries; the much better economic, educational and
opportunities that appear to be available elsewhere; and unrealistic notions of the
costs and benefits of movement, generated in part by unscrupulous smugglers and
traffickers.
While these conditions pertain, the mixed movements to the south seem likely to
continue, irrespective of the barriers that states seek to place in the way of such
mobility. A logical response to this situation is to take appropriate action in places of
origin, addressing the conditions that prompt people to move and thereby averting the
23
need for them to leave their country and community and ensuring to the extent
possible that migration is a true choice.
Such initiatives can take a number of different forms. While it falls beyond the scope
of this paper, the first and most important of those approaches – but equally the most
difficult – requires concerted action to address the governance, developmental and
diplomatic failures that have prompted so many people to leave their country and to
look for sanctuary elsewhere. In this respect, the issue of mixed movements can only
be dealt with effectively if it is seen in the context of issues such as conflict
prevention and resolution, the promotion of human rights and democratization, and
the abolition of impunity.
A second approach is that of promoting local development in areas with high levels of
emigration, providing people with incentives to remain in their own communities.
While the creation of jobs and other livelihoods is evidently key to the success of such
initiatives, the notion of local development must also be seen in a broader perspective,
involving the establishment of effective and affordable services in areas such as
health, education, water and sanitation. This approach is evidently not one that can be
pursued alone by the national and international entities responsible for migrationrelated matters. It requires the full engagement of the states concerned and the support
of the development community.
Third, a number of donor states have taken the position that the onward movement of
refugees might be effectively averted if steps could be taken to strengthen the
protection and assistance available to them in their country of first asylum. According
to this argument, refugees who are „warehoused‟ for years on end in large camps with
limited livelihoods opportunities, rampant social problems and minimal levels of
material support will inevitably look for greener pastures elsewhere. Improve the lives
and prospects of refugees, this approach suggests, and they are less likely to incur the
costs and take the risks of irregular onward movement.
Another approach is that of undertaking migration information campaigns which set
out to inform potential migrants of the risks that they take in moving by irregular
means and the opportunities that exist for safe and regular movement. IOM has
embarked on a regional mass awareness and information campaign in collaboration
with government, civil society and local media in the East and Horn of Africa,
including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan and Uganda, to provide timely and
reliable information to potential migrants.
Migration information programmes, of course, are not a solution where people are
confronted with immediate threats to their lives and livelihoods. Even in more
peaceful contexts, such campaigns must compete with the information, images and
ideas bombarding many Africans, which promote the notion that better opportunities
exist abroad than can be found at home.
While all of these strategies are worthy of further consideration, their limitations
should also be acknowledged. Peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding are of
vital concern to many African citizens, but such approaches will not be put into
practical effect simply because of growing concerns around the issue of mixed
movements.
24
Local development is also often an elusive goal, dependent on the implementation of
appropriate and equitable economic policies at the national level. In the short term at
least, people with access to higher incomes may actually be more rather than less
prone to migrate. And while the notion of improving the protection and assistance
available to refugees is an inherently positive once, it is a strategy that requires the
full support of both host and donor states and which runs the risk of privileging
refugees over equally poor members of the host community.
Migration should ultimately be seen in terms of its potential contributions to national
development. Migration builds human capacity, with migrants bringing skills and also
often returning home with new skills. Migrants also build economic links between
their host and home countries and can be an engine of economic development on both
sides as a source of labour and remittances. The goal should not be to suppress
migration but rather to ensure it is a true choice and yields maximum benefits for the
individuals, communities and countries concerned.
National and regional strategies
A number of transit and destination countries in the region under review have
developed their own strategies for responding to mixed migratory movements. In
Tanzania, for example, a Ministerial Task Force, involving the Ministry of Home
Affairs, IOM, UNHCR and the national and international Red Cross was established
in 2008 to examine the phenomenon of mixed movements through Tanzania and to
consider appropriate responses. The work of the Task Force has provided a rare and
important source of empirical data on this issue, allowing better mapping and
understanding of the movement of people through the country.
In South Africa, where the issue of mixed movement is in many ways most pressing,
the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) has announced its decision “to shift the
international migration paradigm away from trying to combat what is an inevitable
process towards seeking to manage it in the national interest, as well as in the interests
of immigrants themselves, in a proactive rather than reactive way.”6 In order to attain
these objectives, the DHA has:
embarked upon extensive consultations with a wide range of stakeholders,
including the business community and trade union movement;
initiated “an extensive immigration policy review” that will “overhaul the
asylum seeker and refugee system in toto”; and,
engaged with other Home Affairs Ministers in the region, “with a view to
adopting uniform policies across the region on international migration, so as
“to facilitate human movement and encourage regular migration.”
With respect to regional approaches, the SADC has a particularly important role to
6 Statement by Deputy Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba on the occasion of World Refugee Day,
June 2010.
25
play, in the sense that the organization includes countries that are sources of mixed
migratory flows, others that are primarily transit countries and some that are
destination states, while several fall within at least two of these categories. SADC
therefore offers an important potential forum for the development of a regional
approach to the issue of mixed movement.
The SADC‟s Draft Protocol on the Facilitation of Movement of Persons was agreed in
2005 and allows for SADC member state citizens to move, work and stay in other
SADC countries without a visa for up to 90 days. However, the protocol has not gone
into effect, with only four states – Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and
Swaziland – having so far signed it. The protocol did, however, form the basis for the
establishment of a 90-day waiver for Zimbabweans in South Africa, underlining the
potential for regional frameworks to regularize the situation of irregular migrants.
In considering the potential benefits of this framework, it is important to underline
that mixed migratory movements in the SADC region involve considerable numbers
of people from states that are not SADC members: Ethiopia, Somalia, Burundi and
Rwanda, for example. As is the case in the European Union, increased freedom of
movement for SADC citizens, if such an objective can be obtained, may eventually
become associated with increased restrictions on the arrival of people from outside the
area.
The East African Community (EAC), whose partner states are Burundi, Kenya,
Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, has long-term plans to develop a common market, a
common currency and closer forms of political union. The EAC Common Market
Protocol was signed by the five EAC Heads of State on 20 November 2009 and
entered into force on 1 July 2010. It provides for the progressive introduction of
measures to facilitate the free movement of persons.
Visa waiver schemes for EAC citizens have already been implemented, facilitating
cross-border movement within the region. IOM has also been working with the EAC
to strengthen its migration management capacity. These initiatives promise to
facilitate safe and legal movement, to reduce irregular movements and the smuggling
activities associated with them.
As is the case with SADC, the EAC agreement only affects the citizens of partner
states and will not affect mixed movements originating in the Horn of Africa or the
DRC. At the same time, there is a risk that the growing economic cooperation and
integration within the EAC may reduce the amount of protection space for refugees
who flee from one member country to another.7
Another interesting development is the formation of the Intergovernmental Authority
on Development – Regional Consultative Process on Migration (IGAD-RCP),
involving six states from the East and Horn of Africa, with development partners,
international organizations and NGOs acting as observers. The next gathering of the
IGAD-RCP is planned for October 2010 in Addis Ababa.
7 Kenechukwu Esom, “The East African Community and the refugee question”, July 2010,
http://www.sidint.net/the-east-african-community-and-the-refugee-question/,
26
Several other regional initiatives are of relevance to the issue of cross-border
population movement. The Common Market for East and Southern Africa
(COMESA), whose members include Burundi, the DRC and Ethiopia, aims to
establish a fully integrated and internationally competitive region in which goods,
services, capital and people move freely. To date, however, its activities have focused
on the liberalization of trade rather than the regularization of the movement of people.
The Migration Dialogue for Southern Africa (MIDSA) was established with the
support of IOM in 2000 and now has 15 Southern African member states. MIDSA
aims to promote dialogue and cooperation between member states in order to facilitate
a better understanding of the dynamics of migration in the region and to encourage
migration to be used as a positive instrument of development.
In relation to the protection challenges associated with mixed migratory movements,
MIDSA has focused particularly on the need to combat trafficking, smuggling and
other forms of irregular movement, convening several workshops that have allowed
states to share information and ideas on their response to such issues. A MIDSA
Ministerial Meeting on Managing Migration through Regional Cooperation is planned
in Namibia for November 2010.
Finally, the African Union (AU) offers a vital forum for the development of
multilateral approaches to the question of mixed movement in this and other parts of
the continent. The great advantage of the AU in this respect lies in its pan-African
nature and its ability to develop a continent-wide perspective on the issue, thus
incorporating the southward movement from the East and Horn of Africa and the
Great Lakes region, the movement of people from the Horn of Africa to Yemen, the
Middle East and beyond, as well as the mixed movement from sub-Saharan Africa to
North Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe.
The 2006 Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration And Development explicitly
recognized the complex socio-economic causes of African migration, and pledged
both regions to “commit to a partnership between countries of origin, transit and
destination to better manage migration in a comprehensive, holistic and balanced
manner, in a spirit of shared responsibility and cooperation.”
In the same year, the African Union agreed a Common Position on Migration and
Development and a Migration Policy Framework for Africa noting with concern that
“the emphasis on addressing illegal or irregular migration has been only on security
considerations rather than on broader development frameworks and on mainstreaming
migration in development strategies.” The link between migration and development
and the establishment of regular migration routes were identified as “priority policy
issues”.
Conclusion
As this paper has sought to demonstrate, the mixed migratory movement from the
East and Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region to Southern Africa is a complex
and growing phenomenon, and one that cannot be discussed in isolation from the
phenomenon of mixed movement within Southern Africa itself.
27
While its scale is still modest by global standards, it is now attracting increased
international attention: partly because of the many dangers and difficulties
experienced by the people engaged in this movement; partly because of the challenges
that it poses to state sovereignty and security; and partly because of a concern that
these problems might become more serious unless they are addressed in a constructive
and creative manner.
This paper has in general not attempted to make specific recommendations in relation
to the issue of mixed movement to Southern Africa, as these are expected to result
from the Dar es Salaam conference. Rather, it has attempted to examine the scope and
dynamics of the issue, to identify some of the key challenges that it raises for states
and other stakeholders, as well as to review some of the recent approaches and
initiatives that have been taken in relation to this matter. It is hoped that the paper will
provide a useful framework for discussion, analysis, information sharing and strategy
formulation amongst relevant actors.
28
REFERENCES
Amit, R. (April 2010a)
”Protection and Pragmatism: Addressing Administrative Failures in South Africa's
Refugee Status Determination Decisions”.
http://www.migration.org.za/report/protection-andpragmatism-addressing-administrative-failures-south-africa-s-refugee-status-de.
Amit, R. (February 2009)., Monson, T., Vigneswaran, D. and Wachira, G.M.
”Survey of the Refugee Reception and Status Determination System in South Africa.”
http://www.migration.org.za/report/national-survey-refugee-reception-and-statusdetermination-system-south-africa.
Betts, A. and Kaytaz, E. (2009)
”National and international responses to the Zimbabwean exodus: implications
for the refugee protection regime”. UNHCR New Issues in Refugee Research
Working Paper Series, No.175, http://www.unhcr.org/4a76fc8a9.html.
Bloch, A. (2008)
“Gaps in Protection: Undocumented Zimbabwean Migrants in South Africa”.
University of
Witwatersrand Migration Studies Working Paper, No. 38.
Crisp, J. and Kiragu, E. (2010, forthcoming)
“Refugee protection and international migration: a review of UNHCR’s role in
Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa.”
Crush, J., Williams, V. and Peberdy, S.
“Migration in Southern Africa”. Global Commission on International Migration.
IOM (2008)
“International Dialogue on Migration 2008: Challenges of Irregular migration –
addressing mixed migration flows discussion note”. MC/INF/294.
IOM (October 2009a)
“Irregular migration and mixed flows: IOM's approach”. MC/INF/297.
IOM (June 2009b)
”In Pursuit of the Southern Dream: victims of necessity, assessment of the irregular
movement of men from East Africa and the Horn to South Africa”.
http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main-page=product-info&products-id=507.
IOM (De Sas Kropiwnicki) (2010)
“Wolves in Sheep's Skin: A rapid assessment of human trafficking in Musina,
Limpopo Province of South Africa” IOM.
IRIN (2 June 2010a)
“Mozambique-South Africa: Open your eyes when crossing the border”.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=89346.
29
Long, K. (2009)
“Extending Protection? Labour migration and durable solutions for refugees”.
http://www.unhcr.org/4c03826b9.html
Long, K., (2010)
“Home Alone? A review of the relationship between repatriation, mobility and
durable solutions for refugees”. http://www.unhcr.org/4b97afc49.html
Kiwanuka, M. and Monson, T. (November 2009)
“Zimbabwean Migration into Southern Africa: New Trends and Responses”.
http://www.migration.org.za/report/zimbabwean-migration-southern-africa-newtrends-and-responses.
Martens, J. and Pieczkowski, M. and Vuuren-Smyth, B. (May 2003)
“Seduction, sale and slavery: trafficking in women and children for sexual
exploitation in southern Africa”. IOM.
News 24 (June 2009)
“How many Zimbabweans in SA?” http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Howmany-Zimbabweans-in-SA-20090621.
Reuters (6 February 2010)
”Thousands flee south every year from Somalia, Ethiopia”.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61212F.htm.
Steinberg, J. (2005)
“A mixed reception: Mozambican and Congolese Refugees in South Africa”. ISS
Monograph, Series No.117.
Tanzanian ministerial task force on irregular migration (April 2008)
“Report on the situation of irregular migration in Tanzania'. Unpublished.
UNHCR (2001)
“Global consultations on international protection, 2nd meeting. Refugee protection
and migration control: perspectives from UNHCR and IOM”. EC/GC/01/11.
UNHCR (January 2007a)
“Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration: A 10-Point Plan of Action”.
UNHCR (June 2009a)
“Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration: the 10-Point Plan in action”. Geneva:
UNHCR.
UNHCR (2010a)
“2010 UNHCR country operations profile – Somalia”.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483ad6.html.
Van Hear, N., Brubaker, R. and Bessa, T., (2009)
“Managing mobility for human development: the growing salience of mixed
migration”. MPRA Paper No.19202
30